5 ms·

I feel like every time this device shows up I need to yell from the rooftops how dangerous(and illegal) some of the wifi and Bluetooth attacks can be. Even if i

I feel like every time this device shows up I need to yell from the rooftops how dangerous(and illegal) some of the wifi and Bluetooth attacks can be. Even if it's totally baffling WHY any safety critical devices including industrial cranes and pacemakers have consumer radios in them, that doesn't make you less responsible when you crash tons of metal into someones skull or stop someone's heart. Cool device, and I'm not saying it should be illegal or anything, but I've met people who have zero clue with these devices and it's a bit scary.

gjsman-1000 2y ago
[flagged]
- aftbit 2y ago
  It is certainly possible for a small group to cause disproportionate harm. Physical access is a powerful tool. Then again, what is worse than a small group who hates? A large group who doesn't care.
- morpheuskafka 2y ago
  > 2M+ illegal crossings every year from a country that hates us Huh? Since when does Mexico hate America? Many Mexicans like visiting America for shopping and sightseeing, which is why over 2.3M were issued visitor visas in 2023 alone. Mexicans living in American tend to be very hardworking and friendly. Also, I thought most of the people crossing illegally are originally coming from points south of Mexico?
  - gjsman-1000 2y ago
    No, there’s another 2M illegal entries per year in addition to the 2M+ authorized crossings. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wt91pxCd0qA&pp=ygUZc3RldmUgYmFsbG1lciBpbW1pZ3JhdGlvbg%3D%3D https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wt91pxCd0qA&pp=ygUZc3RldmUgYmF...
    - Larrikin 2y ago
      So seems like America is very popular and there isn't some universal hate in Mexico.
      - gjsman-1000 2y ago
        You aren’t very creative. I’m talking about if China, or North Korea, did smuggling as part of the masses deliberately through Mexico.
  - cromka 2y ago
    Either they corrected their comment or you misread, but they said THROUGH Mexico
    - morpheuskafka 2y ago
      The wording was "crossing from a country that hates us," so I guess it depends on how you interpret the word "crossing." To me "crossing from" as opposed to "journeying/coming/emigrating from" seems to refer to the moment of actually crossing the border, in which case they are crossing from Mexico so that would be the country in the sentence.
  - burningChrome 2y ago
    >> Since when does Mexico hate America? Most of the people coming here illegally now are not from Mexico. Some of the last ICE numbers I saw, border patrol had over 150 countries represented and none of them were Mexico. It is true that Mexican cartels who employ Coyotes do account for the majority of the trafficking since they control all the major routes into this country. All of these illegals are violating the Safe Country asylum rule and the majority of people who are seen for asylum cases are rejected and deported anyways. >> Mexicans living in American tend to be very hardworking and friendly. They also remit billions back to Mexico which never make into our economy: Mexicans living and working abroad sent $63.31 billion home last year, a 7.6% increase compared to 2022. Remittances out of Mexico increased 19.5% last year to total $1.05 billion, or just 1.7% of the incoming amount. Most of the incoming money — 99% of which was wired electronically in transfers that averaged $393 per transaction — came from the United States, where millions of Mexicans live. https://mexiconewsdaily.com/business/mexicans-sent-us-63b-home-in-2023/ https://mexiconewsdaily.com/business/mexicans-sent-us-63b-ho...
    - morpheuskafka 2y ago
      > They also remit billions back to Mexico which never make into our economy: OK, but that's not illegal in any way, and I don't think most people would consider it wrong either. The US is a free market economy, so you can pretty much do whatever you want with the money you earned, and gifts aren't taxed at normal wealth levels. Why would it be any different for Mexican residents (and if they aren't permanent residents, it makes even more sense to send their money back home where they are legally expected to return)?
- schmichael 2y ago
  Why send agents with flipper zeros when American consumers willingly buy millions of consumer electronics from China every year that could be part of a supply chain attack? It’s really bizarre that you bring up physical border security when Israel just demonstrated that’s not at all necessary.
thorwaway48583 2y ago
The responsibility remains squarely with the people who developed these devices and the people who give it FCC approval. Devices shouldn’t malfunction and handle interference gracefully. It is an FCC certification requirement and that requirement includes any interference.
- CJefferson 2y ago
  I don’t think that is either legally, or morally, true. Sure, it would be better if devices weren’t broken by attack attempts, but if you are purposefully trying to attack something, you are to blame for your attack succeeding?
  - wpm 2y ago
    >if you are purposefully trying to attack something, you are to blame for your attack succeeding? Yes? It is by definition an attack, a hostile action, something that should not be done. Is it wise to harden systems to withstand attacks? Of course. But when an attack works you don't victim blame. You use knowledge of how it worked to harden your systems better.
    - k_roy 2y ago
      Except this isn't anything special. Literally anyone can do this with an MCU of some type and a 50 cent device. Bluetooth, RF, NFC, etc. This just makes is a nice little convenient package. There is victim blaming and there is practicality. A pacemaker that can't withstand random radio bursts is useless, as the first time you walk down the street you are dead. So unless you are going to ban any sort of microcontroller, and very well documented and simple circuit designs, this is still not victim blaming.
      - CJefferson 2y ago
        Almost every residential building ever built can be broken into by throwing a brick through a window. We could use reinforced glass, but most people don’t. We still convict people for throwing bricks through people’s windows. Generally speaking pacemakers aren’t failing from random radio signals, but if they fail if you specifically attack them, it’s your fault.
aftbit 2y ago
Yeah but less scary than a teenager driving a car.
- aftbit 2y ago
  Hmm I wonder why the downvotes? Maybe people felt this did not add enough to the discussion. Let me try again with more words. I am pointing out that the world is full of risk. Under-prepared kids with half-developed prefrontal cortexes driving cars is a risk that we accept in exchange for the societal good that comes from reliable access to fast transportation. Poorly considered knock-knock attacks on pacemakers is a risk that we can choose to accept in exchange for the societal good that comes from the freedom to create and market security testing devices to the masses. In other words, as I've said before, don't blame the tools, blame the humans, and expect some eggs to get broken along the way. The goal should not be zero risk, as that's unobtainable and leads to warped priorities and dangerous decisions.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
idunnoman1222 2y ago
What is a consumer radio? Radios follow the laws of physics.
wpm 2y ago
Which pacemakers rely on ISM band communications to work? Not doubting you (M in ISM stands for Medical, after all), just curious how it works to get from messing around on 2.4GHz to someone's ticker stopping. Given how much of a soup ISM is already I don't know if I'd want someone's ancient cordless phone, stupid "hacker" toy, or my microwave stopping my heart.
crest 2y ago
"… or stop someone's heart." Please give an example of a pacemaker that is known to (potentially) kill the patient if the WiFi/Bluetooth is unavailable for a few minutes. I know that some modern medical devices use 2.4GHz radios for uploading telemetry, self service interfaces, etc. If such a device really exists the manufacturer should be held liable for putting a dangerous, defective product on the market.

gjsman-1000 2y ago

[flagged]

aftbit 2y ago
It is certainly possible for a small group to cause disproportionate harm. Physical access is a powerful tool. Then again, what is worse than a small group who hates? A large group who doesn't care.
morpheuskafka 2y ago
> 2M+ illegal crossings every year from a country that hates us Huh? Since when does Mexico hate America? Many Mexicans like visiting America for shopping and sightseeing, which is why over 2.3M were issued visitor visas in 2023 alone. Mexicans living in American tend to be very hardworking and friendly. Also, I thought most of the people crossing illegally are originally coming from points south of Mexico?
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  No, there’s another 2M illegal entries per year in addition to the 2M+ authorized crossings. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wt91pxCd0qA&pp=ygUZc3RldmUgYmFsbG1lciBpbW1pZ3JhdGlvbg%3D%3D https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wt91pxCd0qA&pp=ygUZc3RldmUgYmF...
  - Larrikin 2y ago
    So seems like America is very popular and there isn't some universal hate in Mexico.
    - gjsman-1000 2y ago
      You aren’t very creative. I’m talking about if China, or North Korea, did smuggling as part of the masses deliberately through Mexico.
- cromka 2y ago
  Either they corrected their comment or you misread, but they said THROUGH Mexico
  - morpheuskafka 2y ago
    The wording was "crossing from a country that hates us," so I guess it depends on how you interpret the word "crossing." To me "crossing from" as opposed to "journeying/coming/emigrating from" seems to refer to the moment of actually crossing the border, in which case they are crossing from Mexico so that would be the country in the sentence.
- burningChrome 2y ago
  >> Since when does Mexico hate America? Most of the people coming here illegally now are not from Mexico. Some of the last ICE numbers I saw, border patrol had over 150 countries represented and none of them were Mexico. It is true that Mexican cartels who employ Coyotes do account for the majority of the trafficking since they control all the major routes into this country. All of these illegals are violating the Safe Country asylum rule and the majority of people who are seen for asylum cases are rejected and deported anyways. >> Mexicans living in American tend to be very hardworking and friendly. They also remit billions back to Mexico which never make into our economy: Mexicans living and working abroad sent $63.31 billion home last year, a 7.6% increase compared to 2022. Remittances out of Mexico increased 19.5% last year to total $1.05 billion, or just 1.7% of the incoming amount. Most of the incoming money — 99% of which was wired electronically in transfers that averaged $393 per transaction — came from the United States, where millions of Mexicans live. https://mexiconewsdaily.com/business/mexicans-sent-us-63b-home-in-2023/ https://mexiconewsdaily.com/business/mexicans-sent-us-63b-ho...
  - morpheuskafka 2y ago
    > They also remit billions back to Mexico which never make into our economy: OK, but that's not illegal in any way, and I don't think most people would consider it wrong either. The US is a free market economy, so you can pretty much do whatever you want with the money you earned, and gifts aren't taxed at normal wealth levels. Why would it be any different for Mexican residents (and if they aren't permanent residents, it makes even more sense to send their money back home where they are legally expected to return)?
schmichael 2y ago
Why send agents with flipper zeros when American consumers willingly buy millions of consumer electronics from China every year that could be part of a supply chain attack? It’s really bizarre that you bring up physical border security when Israel just demonstrated that’s not at all necessary.

thorwaway48583 2y ago

The responsibility remains squarely with the people who developed these devices and the people who give it FCC approval. Devices shouldn’t malfunction and handle interference gracefully. It is an FCC certification requirement and that requirement includes any interference.

CJefferson 2y ago
I don’t think that is either legally, or morally, true. Sure, it would be better if devices weren’t broken by attack attempts, but if you are purposefully trying to attack something, you are to blame for your attack succeeding?
- wpm 2y ago
  >if you are purposefully trying to attack something, you are to blame for your attack succeeding? Yes? It is by definition an attack, a hostile action, something that should not be done. Is it wise to harden systems to withstand attacks? Of course. But when an attack works you don't victim blame. You use knowledge of how it worked to harden your systems better.
  - k_roy 2y ago
    Except this isn't anything special. Literally anyone can do this with an MCU of some type and a 50 cent device. Bluetooth, RF, NFC, etc. This just makes is a nice little convenient package. There is victim blaming and there is practicality. A pacemaker that can't withstand random radio bursts is useless, as the first time you walk down the street you are dead. So unless you are going to ban any sort of microcontroller, and very well documented and simple circuit designs, this is still not victim blaming.
    - CJefferson 2y ago
      Almost every residential building ever built can be broken into by throwing a brick through a window. We could use reinforced glass, but most people don’t. We still convict people for throwing bricks through people’s windows. Generally speaking pacemakers aren’t failing from random radio signals, but if they fail if you specifically attack them, it’s your fault.

aftbit 2y ago

Yeah but less scary than a teenager driving a car.

aftbit 2y ago
Hmm I wonder why the downvotes? Maybe people felt this did not add enough to the discussion. Let me try again with more words. I am pointing out that the world is full of risk. Under-prepared kids with half-developed prefrontal cortexes driving cars is a risk that we accept in exchange for the societal good that comes from reliable access to fast transportation. Poorly considered knock-knock attacks on pacemakers is a risk that we can choose to accept in exchange for the societal good that comes from the freedom to create and market security testing devices to the masses. In other words, as I've said before, don't blame the tools, blame the humans, and expect some eggs to get broken along the way. The goal should not be zero risk, as that's unobtainable and leads to warped priorities and dangerous decisions.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

idunnoman1222 2y ago

What is a consumer radio? Radios follow the laws of physics.

wpm 2y ago

Which pacemakers rely on ISM band communications to work? Not doubting you (M in ISM stands for Medical, after all), just curious how it works to get from messing around on 2.4GHz to someone's ticker stopping. Given how much of a soup ISM is already I don't know if I'd want someone's ancient cordless phone, stupid "hacker" toy, or my microwave stopping my heart.

crest 2y ago

"… or stop someone's heart." Please give an example of a pacemaker that is known to (potentially) kill the patient if the WiFi/Bluetooth is unavailable for a few minutes. I know that some modern medical devices use 2.4GHz radios for uploading telemetry, self service interfaces, etc. If such a device really exists the manufacturer should be held liable for putting a dangerous, defective product on the market.